Fine Art Project

Amy pointed me to this exhibit that is among those being featured in the HFAC at BYU the last week or two. The exhibit features several portraits of BYU students who are either homosexual, or support someone who is homosexual (although insiders say they're all homosexuals). Here are a couple of the pictures:

This is the statement that the artist has included to accompany his exhibit:

These portraits are of BYU students who identify themselves as homosexual and a person that supports them. This support person could be a family member, friend or may also identify themselves as homosexual and both people may provide support to each other. I have not included labels with these portraits as I feel that labels only create separation and division and further ungrounded stereotypes. We never know who may identify themselves as homosexual and I felt that not labeling these images would force us as a society to question what it is to be homosexual.

This project for me became a journey of truth and enlightenment. I see a bit of myself in each of these portraits. When looking at these images one may see their friends, their family, or a classmates I admire the individuals who were brave enough to become the faces of this project –
Thank you for your time and honesty.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” This is an amazing philosophy that suggests that change starts within each of us. It is my hope that this body of work will be a vehicle for tolerance, support, love and change.

Of course with this being super-conservative BYU, there was an instant reaction to the exhibit. Visit this link to visit the photographer's personal blog. This post discusses what he was trying to portray, and this one is his reaction to BYU censorship. And this is the article from the Deseret News (of course...).


Basically what happened is that the exhibit got put on display without anyone really approving all the projects, or maybe the supervising professor passed off on it not thinking it was a big deal. From the looks of it, it doesn't seem to be anything more than a class project, or senior project because it's one of several different exhibits on display. After a couple of days, somebody realized what the project entailed and decided it had to be removed immediately. A few more days pass, realize it's not really that big of a deal, and then put it back up.


One of my professors has mentioned this before, but some people in the church worry a little too much sometimes about protecting the good name of the church, thinking they have to intervene in behalf of the leaders who really are the ones who should be making those kinds of decisions. For example, some books in the library have to be stored away rather than just being shelved like all the other books because some person will take it upon him- or herself to deface the book because it is somehow "offensive" or "inappropriate". I'm sure something similar happened in this case.


A higher up in the art department got wind of the display, or someone complained that having the display somehow means that church supports homosexuality, or embraces that lifestyle now, and someone decided that the exhibit had to be taken down before the good name of the church became sullied. Then someone from the administration heard about it, decided that wasn't the case and said it should be put back up. The end.


What are your reactions to it? I still have a hard time finding anything to really be upset about as far as the display itself. Should we be supportive of people struggling with same-sex attraction? Of course. Does the art department displaying this piece at BYU mean that all of the sudden the church is going to change its stance on homosexuality? No. Is this piece capitalizing off of the recent events with Proposition 8? Of course it is. Is that so bad? I don't think so. Art, like the news, needs to be relevant and this particular feature is timely. It's a commentary on those events. That's not a bad thing, I don't think.

If anything, I tend to think that the display itself lacks creativity. It's just eight fuzzy portraits, focused on the eyes of these guys who are homosexuals. Is the exhibit making a provocative statement? I think that without the label accompanying the exhibit talking about the disdain for labels (love the irony) the viewer would have no idea what statement was being made. For an exhibition that is supposed to deliver its message visually, it seems so weak that I would have no idea what was trying to be conveyed if it weren't for the verbal explanation. The exhibit probably required some kind of explanation, but I guess it begs the question - is the art for the artist or the viewer? does the interpretation depend on the artist's motives? This piece is definitely more about the statement than the art itself. The other photographs on display really outdo this one in terms of creativity.